BernalJ. D., The social function of science (hereafter SFS) (London, 1939), Preface, p. xv.
2.
HodgkinD. M. C., “John Desmond Bernal”, Biographical memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, xxvi (1980), 17–84, p. 22.
3.
Quoted by Hodgkin, ibid., 23.
4.
Ibid.
5.
SFS, ch. 7, 165–90, p. 171.
6.
ibid., 186.
7.
ibid., 187.
8.
RoseH. and RoseS., “The two Bernals: Revolutionary and revisionist in science”, Fundamenta scientiae, ii (1981), 267–86, p. 268 (I am indebted to Professor Steven Rose for this reference): YoungR., “The relevance of Bernal's questions”, Radical science journal, x (1980), 85–94, p. 90. While not agreeing with this juxtaposition of science and communism ascribed to Bernal, I respect these writers for their work and engagement in trying to make scientists and non-scientists appreciate the social, economic, political and ideological relations of past and present science.
9.
Young, 86.
10.
SFS, 415–16.
11.
See HobsbawmE., in “The missing history — a symposium”, The Times literary supplement, 23–29 June 1989, p. 690.
12.
SFS, 408.
13.
ibid., 408.
14.
ibid., 409.
15.
ibid., 410.
16.
What follows draws on my essay “The scientific-technical revolution: An historical event in the twentieth century?”, in PorterR. and TeichM. (eds), Revolution in history (Cambridge, 1986), 317–30.
17.
BernalJ. D., Science in history, 2nd edn (London, 1957), 960.
18.
BernalJ. D., Science in history, 3rd edn (London, 1965), p. xv.
19.
BernalJ. D., Science in history, illustrated edn (4 vols, London, 1969), i, 15.
